Coping in subclinical paranoia: A two nations study

Abstract

'Poor me' and 'bad me' paranoia may represent separate phases of the same unstable defensive phenomenon. The effectiveness of the existing psychological interventions in prodromal psychosis could be increased by addressing the negative impact of safety behaviours and of substance misuse and by encouraging the practice of more adaptive ways of dealing with everyday problems.

Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioral Reactions to Paranoid Symptoms in Clinical and Nonclinical Populations

“…Differences in terms of reactions to paranoid beliefs were expected, even though paranoia is a shared thought process across all individuals. Results showed that paranoia was present across the four groups, as measured by the PEPS and in consonance current findings on the continuity of paranoid ideation (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)30). That is, all individuals presented, to some extent, convictions about others' intentions to harm them.…”

“…Paranoid ideation has been regarded a continuous cognitive construct (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), as several studies have been supporting over the past decades (7)(8)(9)(10)(11). However, the link between clinical and sub-clinical paranoia and the etiology of paranoid beliefs is not completely understood.…”

‘Poor me’ versus ‘Bad me’ paranoia: The association between self‐beliefs and the instability of persecutory ideation

“…The present study builds on these findings by further investigating the hypothesized relationships between self‐concepts and different presentations of paranoia, employing a longitudinal design. Specific predictions tested in the study were as follows: (1) that ‘bad me’ paranoia would be associated with lower SE than ‘poor me’ paranoia; (2) individuals in a ‘bad me’ paranoid phase were also predicted to have a higher discrepancy between self‐actual and self‐ideal self‐representations compared with those participants in a ‘poor me’ phase and controls, and both clinical groups were expected to have higher discrepancies between other‐actual and self‐actual views compared with the controls; (3) ‘poor me paranoia’ was predicted to be associated with a higher self‐serving bias (i.e., with external attributions for negative events and internal attributions for positive events) than ‘bad me’ paranoia and controls; (4) it was predicted paranoid individuals would become more ‘bad me’ and have lower SE when they experience significant negative daily events (measured by a daily events interview [DEI]), whereas significant positive daily events would be associated with becoming more ‘poor me’ and having higher self‐esteem; (5) it was predicted that rumination and engaging in dangerous activities would be associated with lower SE and higher deservedness ratings, but that distraction would be associated with higher SE and lower deservedness (Melo & Bentall, 2010). (6) We also wished to test whether changes in the type of paranoid presentation would be related to the severity of the paranoid ideation.…”

Psychosocial roots of paranoid ideation: The role of childhood experiences, social comparison, submission, and shame

“…Thus, it is not only relevant to include aspects related to the aetiology of paranoid ideation, stemming from more insecure constructions of the self during the formative years, but to include current emotional experiences and behavioural patterns related to defensive interpersonal strategies. The early memories of rejection and criticism can be the basis of perceptions of low social support (Melo & Bentall, ) and compromise the individual self‐identity, leading to feelings of inferiority, humiliation, shame, submission, social unattractiveness, etc., (Andrews & Hunter, ; Gilbert, Allan, & Goss, ; Matos, Pinto‐Gouveia, & Gilbert, ; Salvatore et al, ). Individual tend to become hypervigilant to social threats, while also maintaining the evaluations of the self as a failure and weak, and perceiving the self negatively in comparison to others (Freeman et al, ).…”